Pages

Monday, February 14, 2011

Destroy the village to save the village

I notice that a couple of Arminian epologists (Peter Lumpkins, Billy Birch) are plugging a deconversion testimony. That’s a reviewing window into their ultimate priorities.

They promote it because they think it scores a coup against Calvinism, since the individual identifies himself as a one-time Calvinist, and directs some of his barbs at Calvinism in particular.

However, as anyone who bothers to read the piece can see, the objections are broader than Calvinism. It's not as if the individual simply switched from Calvinism to, say, Arminianism.

No, he repudiated the Christian faith. And his objections are clearly directed against Christian in general, not Calvinism in particular. Even when he frames his objections in terms of Calvinism, the objections are separable from the specifics of Calvinism.

So why are these Arminians promoting an attack on the Christian faith? Why are they redirecting their audience to read an attack on the Christian faith? Notice, too, that they don’t take the time to rebut any of objections. They let the objections stand.

I’d also note in passing that it doesn’t really score any points against Calvinism. On the one hand, Calvinism makes allowance for apostates and backsliders. On the other hand, some Arminians also commit apostasy.

Apparently, they hate Calvinism more than they love Christianity. Even atheism is better than Calvinism.

It’s like a bunch of bandits who take refuge in an orphanage. The posse decides to burn down the entire orphanage, thereby killing everyone inside, to ensure the death of the bandits. If you have to kill all the orphans to kill all the bandits, it’s worth the price.

For fanatical Arminians, it’s better to make more apostates by steering their readers to a deconversion testimony which justifies wholesale apostasy, than to defend Christianity. Let's set fire to the whole orphanage, even if the orphans burn to death in the process, to make sure you get every last Calvinist.

15 comments:

"Apparently, they hate Calvinism more than they love Christianity. Even atheism is better than Calvinism.

It’s like a bunch of bandits who take refuge in an orphanage. The posse decides to burn down the entire orphanage, thereby killing everyone inside, to ensure the death of the bandits. If you have to kill all the orphans to kill all the bandits, it’s worth the price.

For fanatical Arminians, it’s better to make more apostates by steering their readers to a deconversion testimony which justifies wholesale apostasy, than to defend Christianity. Let's set fire to the whole orphanage, even if the orphans burn to death in the process, to make sure you get every last Calvinist."

"Do Arminians ever lambaste their fellow Arminians to stop being such ungodly haters?

Or are Arminians like many "moderate" Muslims who don't say anything about what their fellow radical Muslims are saying and doing?"

I could ask the same about Calvinists who allow other calvinists to verbally mistreat brothers and sisters in Christ in the name of "truth." To answer your question, though, we all do care what our fellow Arminians are saying and doing.

What "hateful" words have been written? Arminians think of Calvinists -- including you -- as brothers and sisters in Christ. We seek to build up the body of Christ through truth, in love. I do not believe that they are "hating," it is not that I turn a blind eye.

That's true, and I've seen that one or twice myself. But do they oppose the hypers on the basis of "your doctrine is wrong," or do they ever actually address the issue of "are you tearing down the Arminians or being hateful in your language toward people?"

I agree. Whether Calvinists keep Calvinists accountable. is a separate question from whether Arminians keep Arminians accountable. Ultimately, I believe that it's best and most godly for both sides to be gracious, and to hold their comrades accountable to that.

"There are, as Steve says, fanatical Arminians who are haters of Calvinism and Calvinists."

With only one exception, I do not know any Arminians who I would say actually hate Calvinists (the people) rather than calvinism (the system).

"And it's questionable whether they are reined in and held accountable by fellow Arminians."

Saint and Sinner said "Calvinism represents the more Biblical and hence tougher to stomach aspects of the Bible that Christians have to learn to love."

That's not true.

Calvinism, like Arminianism, is an extra-biblical theological framework that provides structure for understanding the Bible. It is as un-biblical as any other post-Reformation, sole-scripture inspired theology. (Or in a more positive sense, it is as biblical ... as any other ...)

Only a Calvinist would (or could) make the above claim (as true), but that doesn't mean it is true, nor does it make it true, or more Biblical.

"Calvinism, like Arminianism, is an extra-biblical theological framework that provides structure for understanding the Bible. It is as un-biblical as any other post-Reformation, sole-scripture inspired theology. (Or in a more positive sense, it is as biblical ... as any other ...)"

Your own statement about Calvinism and Arminianism is, itself, an extra-biblical claim. It's as un-biblical as any other post-biblical assertion.

You're advancing theological relativism. And it cuts your own throat in the process.

"Only a Calvinist would (or could) make the above claim (as true), but that doesn't mean it is true, nor does it make it true, or more Biblical."

Only a non-Calvinist (ἘΚΚΛΗΣΊΑ) would (or could) make the above statements (as true), but that doesn't mean they're true, nor does it make them true, or more Biblical.

Steve said "Your own statement about Calvinism and Arminianism is, itself, an extra-biblical claim. It's as un-biblical as any other post-biblical assertion."

True, exept I'm not asserting my position is "more biblical", and doesn't need to be, since gauging Calvinism and Arminianism against the bible is being done with the same bias. (Because I like the Phoenix Coyotes, I can't form an opinion about which team is worse, Colorado avalanche or Anaheim Ducks)

Steve, you know neither my peeves nor my bias (which I indeed examine). Regardless, I don't need and absolute unbiased view to gauge Calvinism and Arminianism, as long some standard exists, apart from my own view, that all systems can be measured against (including my own).

Fortunately, one standard indeed exists, and it is a standard upon which all others will be broken (including my own).

Who was more wrong theologically, the Pharisees or the Sadducees? It's a meaningless question, and a meaningless point. Who is more correct, the Calvinists or the Arminians? Outside of these two traditions, that too, is a meaningless question if the differences between them is less than the error of their presuppositions.

The impact of Christ's words were, that they shifted accepted contemporary theological standards, which forced believers to make decisions about adopting or rejecting these new standards (with revelation, a new seal was broken). Either way the status quo was necessarily altered.

Even with direct access to Christ's words, the standard shifted again as Paul revealed his mystery. Paul interpretation of Christ's words in a systemic theological framework force the status quo to again be shifted. Even Peter recognised this [2 Peter3:15-16]

Incidentally, we recognise the impact Paul had, by crediting Paul's writings with divine inspiration. But even again, the standard shifts further during the Reformation. Many Reformed ideas certainly existed prior to the Reformation, appearing sporadically in theological discussion, but prior to the controversy with Rome itself, the theological standard was absolutely different than it was post-reformation, since systemic formulation of reformed ideas forced renewed movement of the theological standard (another seal was broken).

[Or do you not believe the reformation was influenced by the work of the Holy Ghost? Or do you not believe the reformation brought us a better understanding?]

For me to argue that confessional traditions (even one's favoured by my own biases) are something apart from Christ's ideal orthodoxy, does not require that I possess perfect doctrine on my part. Rather it requires only the recognition that all man constructed theology is deficient (classical error theory suggests reasons, representational error for example)

In your critique of my point, you claim I advance theological relativism, but this is more emotive than logical. It isn't true for two reasons.

First, I did not equate all theological systems (as equally (in)valid) but two only. Second, I did not assert that no system what-so-ever possessed absolute truth or validity. Indeed, I believe exactly one exists. Third, recognising changing theological standards does not necessitate theological relativism.

But even if pressed, I would freely concede that by the example of Christ, Paul, the reformation, and the Holy Ghost, man is able to draw nearer to that one valid system (given by God), in varying degrees; and even with bias, some systems are better than others.

But again, that doesn't mean Calvinism and Arminianism aren't as I portrayed them to be. So your emotive response, unfortunately, is without substance.

Your pet peeves are self-evident from what you choose to harp on. And your bias is self-evident from how you choose to frame issues. So your bias remains unexamined.

“Who is more correct, the Calvinists or the Arminians? Outside of these two traditions, that too, is a meaningless question if the differences between them is less than the error of their presuppositions.”

Your denial is meaningless. Take TULIP and anti-TULIP. They can’t both be true. Each could be partially true, or one could be completely true while the other is completely false. In theory, you could even try to argue that both are completely false.

But whatever the permutations, to the degree that one is truer (or less true, or false), one is truer to Scripture than another. And to that degree, one is truer than the other.